Council Looks to Set Course for AMP Lofts Approval

By Eric Richardson
Published: Monday, January 07, 2008, at 07:30PM

AMP1 Ed Fuentes

The proposed AMP Lofts at 695 Santa Fe has land, an award winning design and the favor of both Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Councilman Jose Huizar. What it doesn't have is approval from the city's planning department. Tomorrow morning City Council will consider a motion by Huizar to take jurisdiction over the case and let the council's Planning and Land Use Committee determine the project's fate.

On December 13th six members of the Central Area Community Planning Commission deadlocked on whether to reverse a denial by Acting Zoning Administrator Michael LoGrande, causing the initial decision to hold. LoGrande's denial was largely predicated on the argument that residential use was inconsistent with the neighborhood, but a look around shows that the project has plenty of residential neighbors. Diagonally across the intersection of 7th and Santa Fe is 2121 Lofts, with 78 units. Just one block away are the Toy Factory and Biscuit Company lofts, with a combined 214 units. The 182-unit AMP Lofts would cement what has quickly turned in a southern outpost of the Arts District.

Though the original denial and December deadlock predate the Industrial Land Use Policy just introduced by Planning and CRA, the arguments read just the same. Though the project's process was put in play way back in 2005, tomorrow's Council action looks to be the first move in the fight over development of Downtown's industrial district.

Previously: AMP Lofts to Rise Within the Warehouses


Industrial Land Use Policy

Perhaps the Downtown Art Walk shouldn't be so proud of its L.A. APA Awards win. Curbed has a list of the winners, and one of the awards went to the Planning...

Not all "industry" is created equal. That's a fact that seems to get lost in many of the stats brought out by the Planning department to support its Industrial...


9 More Stories in Industrial Land Use Policy


Comments

1
meekorouse writes:

so this is going to be decided on tomorrow morning? how does this affect anything, at the later public meeting?? just curious.

# on Jan.07.2008 AT 10:48 PM
2
Eric Richardson writes:

Tomorrow morning Council will just vote on whether to assert its jurisdiction over the planning decision for AMP Lofts. This won't directly do anything for the broader ILUP issue, but it's a sign that council is looking to make sure things keep moving forward despite what Planning is doing.

# on Jan.07.2008 AT 10:56 PM
3
meekorouse writes:

Thanks Eric, appreciate the reply. I'm obviously still learning a lot about these things. Still have a long way to go.

# on Jan.07.2008 AT 11:07 PM
4
michael#1 writes:

Damn, 3-4 years ago we almost bought the building kitty corner to this project.

# on Jan.08.2008 AT 06:39 AM
5
Whitman Lam writes:

The City Council should consider more street improvements on Alameda St. and Santa Fe before they move forward on so much Hi density loft buildings. Every time I pass by there during rush hour, traffic is a mess. There are no left turn lanes, and cars are piling up a block long waiting to turn left in the median.

# on Jan.08.2008 AT 11:25 AM
6
LAofAnaheim writes:

Whitman.....left turn lanes are a god-send for the suburbs. Please keep the city streets, CITY streets. That being said, ideas like on-street parking (I hate anti-gridlock zoning, it makes our city streets a surburban thoroughfare) should be maintained and encouraged. The Ralphs looks much better with people parking in front than when anti-gridlock reduces the pedestrian traffic. Also, left-turn lanes delay pedestrians from crossing streets; b/c both ways of a street are reserved for car movement at a left-turn signal.

Nothing is more frustrating in LA than the loss of on-street parking to parking garages/lots, etc.. that take up valuable space to build a residential/office bldg. On-street parking helps public transit as well. Cars become a little less efficent (i.e. can't find a spot, slow down for people parking, less lanes, etc..). Maybe the person would take metro instead, eh? On-street parking is GREAT for pedestrian traffic. Nothing is more city-like than when a person parks on the street and walks into the store and being visible on sidewalks. Not an underground garage, where the customer walks into a store and leaves in the elevator; no sign of street life.

Let's stop thinking of moving cars, but moving people. Look at 11th & Hope w/ the South Properties, they did it right!

# on Jan.08.2008 AT 12:35 PM
7
Whitman Lam writes:

Well, the Arts / Industrial district isn't exactly 7th/metro center is it ?? Which is my point: People will use whatever means necessary and convenient to get from their home to work. If developers are going to turn every rusty shack warehouse into some trendy lofts.... let them pay for street improvements too... or a new trolley line, I'd like that.

# on Jan.08.2008 AT 01:53 PM
8
LAofAnaheim writes:

I'm totally down with transit over street improvements. At the same time, the sidewalk/street improvements done at 11th & Hope can be mimicked elsewhere. Remove the center divider and have 2 lanes free-flow; with enough space to have on-street parking. They removed one side of parking on Olympic a few years ago between Flower & Grand, and now we have a center divider. You can see the old parking spot paintings and former center line. Olympic would be prettier with street parking.

# on Jan.08.2008 AT 02:25 PM

Your Comment:

YOUR INFORMATION:
Name:
Email:
URL:
  • Comments should be on the topic of the post or they will be removed.
  • Use the live preview below to see how your comment will look before posting.
  • Keep it civil, everyone. If you're attacking people instead of arguments, or being overly profane, expect your comment to get deleted.

FORMATTING BASICS:

blogdowntown uses Markdown formatting.

_Italics_
__Bold__
<http://url.to.link>
[link text](http://url)

COMMENT:

Preview

Start typing...